Israel will not get in a large-scale war (i.e. >50 Israeli deaths) with any Arab state: 90%.

North Korea’s government will survive the year without large civil war/revolt (>100 deaths): 95%.

No new global temperature record: 90%.

If only because it will be hard to beat 2016. That said, I expect shipping in the Arctic to continue booming.

Radical life extension will not be developed: 99%.

Superintelligence will not be developed: 99%.

No further large scale civil wars/revolts/revolutions in Middle East/North African countries not already so afflicted: 70%.

No large scale civil wars/revolts/revolutions (>100 deaths) in USA: 95%.

No large scale civil wars/revolts/revolutions (>100 deaths) in China: 99%.

No large scale civil wars/revolts/revolutions (>100 deaths) in Russia: 95%.

No large scale civil wars/revolts/revolutions in any EU country (>100 deaths): 90%.

Syrian Civil War

Bashar Assad will remain President of Syria: 95%.

IS no longer in control of Raqqa: 50%.

IS no longer in control of Palmyra: 80%.

IS no longer in control of Mosul: 95%.

IS still controls some territory in Iraq and/or Syria: 90%.

Syria still controls Aleppo: 80%.

The first danger is a Turkish stab in the back, in which its proxies turn hostile and, in effect, encircle Aleppo between al-Bab and Idlib (though I don’t view that as being likely). The second danger remains the banal fact that most of the SAA is no good, especially its garrison units. I don’t fully exclude the possibility of the rebels seizing the city back once the elite units are sent off somewhere else.

Syria still controls Deir ez-Zor airport: 90%.

Idlib is still under rebel control: 70%.

That province has the lowest polled support for Assad of any in Syria, and that number has correlated very well with the difficulties the Syrian state has had in reimposing its authority there.

US/Allies will NOT impose no fly zone over Syria: 95%.

Turkey will not “backstab” Russia and the Syrian government: 90%.

The Syrian Civil War is still ongoing: 95%.

Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War is scaled down relative to today in a year’s time: 70%.

War in Donbass

War in Donbass doesn’t reignite: 80%.

Incidentally, and quite ironically, Trump’s election may well have made Ukraine’s position safer (that at least is also the opinion of Igor Strelkov). Were HRC to bloody Putin’s nose in Syria with a no fly zone, three guesses as to who the object of a “short victorious war” to restore Putin’s reputation might have been. With Trump, Syria as a source of escalation is removed.

The Ukrainians also now have far fewer reasons to heat things up, because its a safe bet that Trump won’t be interested in pulling their chestnuts out of the fire.

No “Putinsliv”/abandonment of Russian support for DNR/LNR, with Ukraine recapturing Donetsk and Lugansk: 99%.

Mariupol still under Ukraine control: 90%.

Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa, and Kharkov all still under central Ukrainian control: 95%.

Kolomoysky has been defanged as a regional attractor, but Odessa remains a potential powderkeg. I think Ukraine will pull through – as I’ve always noted, Right Sector thugs count for more on the streets than protesting pensioners.

Poroshenko remains in power: 90%.

The Ukraine does not undergo sovereign default: 90%.

The next key date is January 2017 when the Commercial Court in the UK rules on the status of Russia’s $3 billion loan to Ukraine.

The Ukrainian economy shows GDP growth: 80%.

If only because there is very little room for it to fall any further, with GDP per capita only 70% that of the UkSSR in 1989.

Russia

Putin remains Russian President: 95%.

Putin announces entry into Presidential race for his second (fourth in total) term: 90%.

Europe

François Fillon becomes French President: 70%.

Marine Le Pen will not be French President: 80%.

Yes, to be sure, last year’s events made fools of mainstream analysts, but the fact remains that the French political system is very tough for nationalists. Trump wouldn’t have won in that format either.

Merkel remains German Chancellor: 70%.

Frauke Petry will not be German Chancellor: 90%.

Based on opinion polls, I just don’t see how it’s possible.

No country leaves the Eurozone: 95%.

Article 50 is invoked in the UK: 90%.

No second Scottish referendum is called: 80%.

Scotland remains in the UK: 95%.

No Islamic terrorist attack in Europe causing more than 100 deaths: 70%.

The EU relaxes or removes Russia sanctions: 60%.

The Mediterraneans don’t care and are getting increasingly restive.

Misc

The Unz Review has fewer viewers than in 2016: 70%.

Would be great to be wrong, but it’ll be hard to beat the (last) Current Year.

The “Ferguson Effect” reverses or at least stabilizes (homicides in major urban areas peak off): 60%.

I don’t know about that. The media will hype white-cop-shoots-black-teen incidents as the ugly face of Trumpism. That would cause more riots. Big city mayors are liberal wimps who will continue to muzzle police in response to unrest.

François Fillon becomes French President: 70%.

He wants to reduce the importance of the state in the French economy. As I’ve been saying for years, US whites are anti-gov because they know that the gov spends their tax money on blacks, not because of a frontier-like spirit of independence inherited from the Scottish lowlands or any of that romantic crap. FDR’s statism was race-blind, so US whites supported it. LBJ’s (and later) statism benefited blacks at the expense of whites, so whites turned against it.

As immigrants become the main beneficiaries of the Euro welfare states, the natives should be expected to turn against statism. You’ve written about US politics becoming more European. This is Euro politics becoming more American.

No Islamic terrorist attack in Europe causing more than 100 deaths: 70%.

I’m more pessimistic on that one.

“I should imminently have a lot more free time so my productivity should increase”

"not because of a frontier-like spirit of independence inherited from the Scottish lowlands or any of that romantic crap."

-But that crap did, you know, exist, and had real political effects for quite a while:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29572

LBJ’s (and later) statism benefited blacks at the expense of whites, so whites turned against it.

-Not immediately. Johnson was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of the White vote. Goldwaterism was more popular than Johnson's wildly popular proposals only in the Deep South and Arizona. However, the realization that the Democrats were now the Black Party did substantially hurt them in 1968 and the 1980s. Opposition to the New Deal first began in the Great Plains, not the Deep South.

Big city mayors are liberal wimps who will continue to muzzle police in response to unrest.

My confidence in this particular prediction isn't high. I'm just betting (as with the campus disinvitations prediction) that the groundswell of opinion against SJWism in all its forms as expressed in Trumpism is going to affect the people in charge - who do after all have elections to win and students to attract - more strongly than their urge to react hystrionically to Trump.

As immigrants become the main beneficiaries of the Euro welfare states, the natives should be expected to turn against statism. You’ve written about US politics becoming more European.

I totally agree. As Sailer pointed out there was an amazing r=-0.87 correlation between %Blacks and Bernie share of the vote in the primaries.

I’m more pessimistic on that one.

It's what statistics over the past few years would indicate. From the 2016 predictions: "Although the concern about them is highly understandable, it should be noted that in the past ~decade there were only two such instances – Spain in 2004, and France in 2015. So there’s likely a less than 50% chance of that happening in any one year, regardless of the current increase in tensions."

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

The “Ferguson Effect” reverses or at least stabilizes (homicides in major urban areas peak off): 60%.

I don't know about that. The media will hype white-cop-shoots-black-teen incidents as the ugly face of Trumpism. That would cause more riots. Big city mayors are liberal wimps who will continue to muzzle police in response to unrest.

François Fillon becomes French President: 70%.

He wants to reduce the importance of the state in the French economy. As I've been saying for years, US whites are anti-gov because they know that the gov spends their tax money on blacks, not because of a frontier-like spirit of independence inherited from the Scottish lowlands or any of that romantic crap. FDR's statism was race-blind, so US whites supported it. LBJ's (and later) statism benefited blacks at the expense of whites, so whites turned against it.

As immigrants become the main beneficiaries of the Euro welfare states, the natives should be expected to turn against statism. You've written about US politics becoming more European. This is Euro politics becoming more American.

No Islamic terrorist attack in Europe causing more than 100 deaths: 70%.

I'm more pessimistic on that one.

"I should imminently have a lot more free time so my productivity should increase"

Great to hear. And thank you for the mention.

“not because of a frontier-like spirit of independence inherited from the Scottish lowlands or any of that romantic crap.”

-But that crap did, you know, exist, and had real political effects for quite a while:

LBJ’s (and later) statism benefited blacks at the expense of whites, so whites turned against it.

-Not immediately. Johnson was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of the White vote. Goldwaterism was more popular than Johnson’s wildly popular proposals only in the Deep South and Arizona. However, the realization that the Democrats were now the Black Party did substantially hurt them in 1968 and the 1980s. Opposition to the New Deal first began in the Great Plains, not the Deep South.

Opposition to the New Deal first began in the Great Plains, not the Deep South.

I think that FDR was least popular with Yankees. The rugged Scots-Irish individualists in the South were for him because they were poor and his statism was of an anti-poverty kind.

All politics is tribal. The big question isn't statism vs. laissez faire, but whom does this or that particular version of statism or laissez faire benefit? Are we winning or losing on this?

And I'm not faulting anyone for asking this question. If the government takes your hard-earned money and gives it to foreign-to-you layabouts, it's natural to be opposed to it. But not all statism is of that kind.

Opposition to the New Deal first began in the Great Plains, not the Deep South.

Southern senators were careful to make sure that New Deal programs could be structured to exclude blacks and that state officials had the final say over certain decisions involving distributing funds. Hence, the New Deal was reasonably popular in the south, and even most segregationists were OK with it.

Unfortunately that’s probably correct. Frauke Petry certainly won’t become chancellor…you could have increased the likelihood for this to 99%. However, I do have some hope that the AfD might do better than expected…if they get 20% or even more and if the CDU does really badly (and if the Bavarian CSU who has made some critical noise about Merkel’s immigration policy doesn’t lose as much), there might finally be a coup against Merkel in her own party. Hard to predict what’s going to happen though, might depend on whether there will be more high publicity crimes/terror attacks by migrants.
In any case, I’m looking forward to your game reviews

PredictIt is giving Petry 21%, though I do suspect that is mostly due to some of their American users thinking the Trump wave is directly translatable to Germany without taking into account polling and political system differences.

Backing this impression is the fact that PredictIt users are also relatively highly optimistic on Le Pen at 33%, whereas PredictWise gives her an IMO more realistic 17% which draws its data from polling and betting sites.

"not because of a frontier-like spirit of independence inherited from the Scottish lowlands or any of that romantic crap."

-But that crap did, you know, exist, and had real political effects for quite a while:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29572

LBJ’s (and later) statism benefited blacks at the expense of whites, so whites turned against it.

-Not immediately. Johnson was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of the White vote. Goldwaterism was more popular than Johnson's wildly popular proposals only in the Deep South and Arizona. However, the realization that the Democrats were now the Black Party did substantially hurt them in 1968 and the 1980s. Opposition to the New Deal first began in the Great Plains, not the Deep South.

Opposition to the New Deal first began in the Great Plains, not the Deep South.

I think that FDR was least popular with Yankees. The rugged Scots-Irish individualists in the South were for him because they were poor and his statism was of an anti-poverty kind.

All politics is tribal. The big question isn’t statism vs. laissez faire, but whom does this or that particular version of statism or laissez faire benefit? Are we winning or losing on this?

And I’m not faulting anyone for asking this question. If the government takes your hard-earned money and gives it to foreign-to-you layabouts, it’s natural to be opposed to it. But not all statism is of that kind.

I think there may be some truth to that, but I don't think it's the whole story. For instance, if you look at New Deal policies, they were very focused on providing jobs, due to the culture at the time that denigrated layabouts and bums. While make-work schemes like the Civilian Conservation Corps can certainly be criticized on economic grounds (and were so criticized by the Old Right), they at least tried to preserve the idea that nobody was entitled to a living without working for it.

The Great Society programs, on the other hand, were much more focused on just doling out cash, regardless of whether the recipients tried to work for it or not. I remember reading that in the 1970s a lot of white working-class folks refused such welfare on principle, even as they no doubt continued to support New Deal policies. I don't see why there would be a stigma among white working-class people against receiving welfare if their only objection to such welfare was that it was going to support blacks.

Of course, as Charles Murray documents, the bum culture has spread into white working-class neighborhoods since the 1970s, and you find the same kind of long-term unemployment and withdrawal from the labor force that you do among the black underclass.

The “Ferguson Effect” reverses or at least stabilizes (homicides in major urban areas peak off): 60%.

I don't know about that. The media will hype white-cop-shoots-black-teen incidents as the ugly face of Trumpism. That would cause more riots. Big city mayors are liberal wimps who will continue to muzzle police in response to unrest.

François Fillon becomes French President: 70%.

He wants to reduce the importance of the state in the French economy. As I've been saying for years, US whites are anti-gov because they know that the gov spends their tax money on blacks, not because of a frontier-like spirit of independence inherited from the Scottish lowlands or any of that romantic crap. FDR's statism was race-blind, so US whites supported it. LBJ's (and later) statism benefited blacks at the expense of whites, so whites turned against it.

As immigrants become the main beneficiaries of the Euro welfare states, the natives should be expected to turn against statism. You've written about US politics becoming more European. This is Euro politics becoming more American.

No Islamic terrorist attack in Europe causing more than 100 deaths: 70%.

I'm more pessimistic on that one.

"I should imminently have a lot more free time so my productivity should increase"

Great to hear. And thank you for the mention.

Big city mayors are liberal wimps who will continue to muzzle police in response to unrest.

My confidence in this particular prediction isn’t high. I’m just betting (as with the campus disinvitations prediction) that the groundswell of opinion against SJWism in all its forms as expressed in Trumpism is going to affect the people in charge – who do after all have elections to win and students to attract – more strongly than their urge to react hystrionically to Trump.

As immigrants become the main beneficiaries of the Euro welfare states, the natives should be expected to turn against statism. You’ve written about US politics becoming more European.

I totally agree. As Sailer pointed out there was an amazing r=-0.87 correlation between %Blacks and Bernie share of the vote in the primaries.

I’m more pessimistic on that one.

It’s what statistics over the past few years would indicate. From the 2016 predictions: “Although the concern about them is highly understandable, it should be noted that in the past ~decade there were only two such instances – Spain in 2004, and France in 2015. So there’s likely a less than 50% chance of that happening in any one year, regardless of the current increase in tensions.“

It’s what statistics over the past few years would indicate. From the 2016 predictions: “Although the concern about them is highly understandable, it should be noted that in the past ~decade there were only two such instances – Spain in 2004, and France in 2015. So there’s likely a less than 50% chance of that happening in any one year, regardless of the current increase in tensions.“

It's true, however I'd still agree with Glossy. While in history, those attachs have been very rare in the EU, their probability has increased nevertheless. After all, the Nice terrorist also came rather close to killing 100 people.

Unfortunately that's probably correct. Frauke Petry certainly won't become chancellor...you could have increased the likelihood for this to 99%. However, I do have some hope that the AfD might do better than expected...if they get 20% or even more and if the CDU does really badly (and if the Bavarian CSU who has made some critical noise about Merkel's immigration policy doesn't lose as much), there might finally be a coup against Merkel in her own party. Hard to predict what's going to happen though, might depend on whether there will be more high publicity crimes/terror attacks by migrants.
In any case, I'm looking forward to your game reviews :-)

PredictIt is giving Petry 21%, though I do suspect that is mostly due to some of their American users thinking the Trump wave is directly translatable to Germany without taking into account polling and political system differences.

Backing this impression is the fact that PredictIt users are also relatively highly optimistic on Le Pen at 33%, whereas PredictWise gives her an IMO more realistic 17% which draws its data from polling and betting sites.

I assume this means the official Chinese figure, which most economists believe is exaggerated by at least 1%.

Is that really true? Many statistics and figures tell a different story about the Chinese economy (consumption, etc.). If anything, the true size of the Chinese economy is slightly larger than reported.

And to be honest, quite a few western economists are probably more or less ideologically and geopolitically biased against China. Well, atleast something like 5.5% is actually believable, unlike some ridiculous 3% or 4% "estimates" that are barely above the world average.

It also seems the economy has "stabilized" (which is misleading, as it was always growing fast). Anatoly's prediction is somewhat pessimistic, IMO. My prediction: 70% for atleast 6.4-6.5%, 85% for 6%+. Aren't most expecting roughly the same growth as last year, maybe 0.1-0.2% slower?

That’s a fairly bold prediction, about double most forecasts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened.

Not necessarily. I think most forecasts are expecting atleast something like 1.2-1.5% and it seems that the oil price and investor sentiment, etc. are possibly picking up slightly faster than previously estimated. 2% or very close to it is entirely plausible.

The official forecast of 0.6% was based on an oil price of $40 and their "base plus" scenario of around 1.2-1.5% (IIRC) expects an oil price of $50-55, I think, something like that.

According to RT and TASS, Kudrin of all people seems to pretty optimistic on the Russian economy, expecting a growth of 3%+ in 2019 and 4% in 2021.

I assume this means the official Chinese figure, which most economists believe is exaggerated by at least 1%.

Russia

GDP grows by 2%+: 50%.

That's a fairly bold prediction, about double most forecasts, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.

US economy grows by 3%+: 50%.

Would be the first time that's happened since 2005.

I assume this means the official Chinese figure, which most economists believe is exaggerated by at least 1%.

Is that really true? Many statistics and figures tell a different story about the Chinese economy (consumption, etc.). If anything, the true size of the Chinese economy is slightly larger than reported.

And to be honest, quite a few western economists are probably more or less ideologically and geopolitically biased against China. Well, atleast something like 5.5% is actually believable, unlike some ridiculous 3% or 4% “estimates” that are barely above the world average.

It also seems the economy has “stabilized” (which is misleading, as it was always growing fast). Anatoly’s prediction is somewhat pessimistic, IMO. My prediction: 70% for atleast 6.4-6.5%, 85% for 6%+. Aren’t most expecting roughly the same growth as last year, maybe 0.1-0.2% slower?

That’s a fairly bold prediction, about double most forecasts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened.

Not necessarily. I think most forecasts are expecting atleast something like 1.2-1.5% and it seems that the oil price and investor sentiment, etc. are possibly picking up slightly faster than previously estimated. 2% or very close to it is entirely plausible.

The official forecast of 0.6% was based on an oil price of $40 and their “base plus” scenario of around 1.2-1.5% (IIRC) expects an oil price of $50-55, I think, something like that.

According to RT and TASS, Kudrin of all people seems to pretty optimistic on the Russian economy, expecting a growth of 3%+ in 2019 and 4% in 2021.

Is that really true? Many statistics and figures tell a different story about the Chinese economy (consumption, etc.). If anything, the true size of the Chinese economy is slightly larger than reported.

I've seen dozens of economists and think-tanks argue that official Chinese GDP growth is exaggerated, I've never come across one who thinks it's actually larger than reported. I recall that a couple years ago, somebody (Bloomberg?) conducted a survey of around 30 economists, and their average Chinese growth estimate was a little over 6%, at a time when the official figure was 7%. And there is a substantial minority who estimate 5% or even less.

And to be honest, quite a few western economists are probably more or less ideologically and geopolitically biased against China.

I think that's true about Russia, but not about China. If anything I think Western analysts have tended to get caught up in the China hype that was prevalent until very recently.

Well, atleast something like 5.5% is actually believable, unlike some ridiculous 3% or 4% “estimates” that are barely above the world average.

If China isn't barely above the world average now, it soon may be. A 2016 Harvard study forecast China's average growth over the next 10 years to be 4.3%, slower than India.

My prediction: 70% for atleast 6.4-6.5%, 85% for 6%+. Aren’t most expecting roughly the same growth as last year, maybe 0.1-0.2% slower?

I assume this means the official Chinese figure, which most economists believe is exaggerated by at least 1%.

Is that really true? Many statistics and figures tell a different story about the Chinese economy (consumption, etc.). If anything, the true size of the Chinese economy is slightly larger than reported.

And to be honest, quite a few western economists are probably more or less ideologically and geopolitically biased against China. Well, atleast something like 5.5% is actually believable, unlike some ridiculous 3% or 4% "estimates" that are barely above the world average.

It also seems the economy has "stabilized" (which is misleading, as it was always growing fast). Anatoly's prediction is somewhat pessimistic, IMO. My prediction: 70% for atleast 6.4-6.5%, 85% for 6%+. Aren't most expecting roughly the same growth as last year, maybe 0.1-0.2% slower?

That’s a fairly bold prediction, about double most forecasts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it happened.

Not necessarily. I think most forecasts are expecting atleast something like 1.2-1.5% and it seems that the oil price and investor sentiment, etc. are possibly picking up slightly faster than previously estimated. 2% or very close to it is entirely plausible.

The official forecast of 0.6% was based on an oil price of $40 and their "base plus" scenario of around 1.2-1.5% (IIRC) expects an oil price of $50-55, I think, something like that.

According to RT and TASS, Kudrin of all people seems to pretty optimistic on the Russian economy, expecting a growth of 3%+ in 2019 and 4% in 2021.

Is that really true? Many statistics and figures tell a different story about the Chinese economy (consumption, etc.). If anything, the true size of the Chinese economy is slightly larger than reported.

I’ve seen dozens of economists and think-tanks argue that official Chinese GDP growth is exaggerated, I’ve never come across one who thinks it’s actually larger than reported. I recall that a couple years ago, somebody (Bloomberg?) conducted a survey of around 30 economists, and their average Chinese growth estimate was a little over 6%, at a time when the official figure was 7%. And there is a substantial minority who estimate 5% or even less.

And to be honest, quite a few western economists are probably more or less ideologically and geopolitically biased against China.

I think that’s true about Russia, but not about China. If anything I think Western analysts have tended to get caught up in the China hype that was prevalent until very recently.

Well, atleast something like 5.5% is actually believable, unlike some ridiculous 3% or 4% “estimates” that are barely above the world average.

If China isn’t barely above the world average now, it soon may be. A 2016 Harvard study forecast China’s average growth over the next 10 years to be 4.3%, slower than India.

My prediction: 70% for atleast 6.4-6.5%, 85% for 6%+. Aren’t most expecting roughly the same growth as last year, maybe 0.1-0.2% slower?

There was a paper that countered the "Chinese economic growth figures are manipulated" argument well and their conclusion was that the Chinese economy was actually slighty bigger than reported. I think Anatoly mentioned it in one his posts but right now I'm unable to find it. But there's this: http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/node/2881

Anatoly is also clearly a China believer and as he pointed out in his earlier articles, numerous different consumption metrics (energy consumption, internet penetration, car and smartphones sales and so on) seem to support the view that the official growth rate and size are more or less accurate. And economists who agree with that certainly exist even in the west.

The "China hype" should certainly still be a thing because actually nothing has really changed. The economy growth was always going to modestly slow down. Hyping up the slowdown actually clearly showed media's negative bias against China.

I guess 4-5% in the 2020s sounds pretty believable, atleast after 2025 or so, but again, that is totally expected and was always going to happen as China gets richer. And India is already growing slightly faster than China, as it should, considering their economy is still much less developed, so it's not comparable.

I do agree with you that the western media has been even more negative on the Russian economy and on Russia in general, especially after Maidan.

It's also pretty clear to me that the "image" of Russian economy has totally collapsed and it's going to take some time to recover. People in the west probably happily think that the Russian economy has gone down the drain, or something, which obviously isn't true at all. "Ultra-developed west's sanctions against ebil Putler and his kleptoratic gas station of an 'economy'."

Really, the role of oil and gas was always exaggerated to massive proportions. It's an easy talking point to mention Russian exports without any context vs. "oh, eveything I own is made in China." Then there are things like the fact that Russia is in Europe, right next to EU and NATO, but China is far away, so the relations between the west and Russia have always been more tense, even before 2014.

Russian so-called "everything is bad in Russia, let's blame Putin" liberals have been a major source for anti-Russian propaganda (including the economy), they don't exist in China.

Many people also don't realize that Russian and Chinese economies aren't directly comparable. The Soviet economy was already much more developed than China in the 80s and average Russian living standards remain considerably higher. Not to mention the fact that China's population is almost 10 times bigger.

Is that really true? Many statistics and figures tell a different story about the Chinese economy (consumption, etc.). If anything, the true size of the Chinese economy is slightly larger than reported.

I've seen dozens of economists and think-tanks argue that official Chinese GDP growth is exaggerated, I've never come across one who thinks it's actually larger than reported. I recall that a couple years ago, somebody (Bloomberg?) conducted a survey of around 30 economists, and their average Chinese growth estimate was a little over 6%, at a time when the official figure was 7%. And there is a substantial minority who estimate 5% or even less.

And to be honest, quite a few western economists are probably more or less ideologically and geopolitically biased against China.

I think that's true about Russia, but not about China. If anything I think Western analysts have tended to get caught up in the China hype that was prevalent until very recently.

Well, atleast something like 5.5% is actually believable, unlike some ridiculous 3% or 4% “estimates” that are barely above the world average.

If China isn't barely above the world average now, it soon may be. A 2016 Harvard study forecast China's average growth over the next 10 years to be 4.3%, slower than India.

My prediction: 70% for atleast 6.4-6.5%, 85% for 6%+. Aren’t most expecting roughly the same growth as last year, maybe 0.1-0.2% slower?

That sounds about right for the official figure.

There was a paper that countered the “Chinese economic growth figures are manipulated” argument well and their conclusion was that the Chinese economy was actually slighty bigger than reported. I think Anatoly mentioned it in one his posts but right now I’m unable to find it. But there’s this: http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/node/2881

Anatoly is also clearly a China believer and as he pointed out in his earlier articles, numerous different consumption metrics (energy consumption, internet penetration, car and smartphones sales and so on) seem to support the view that the official growth rate and size are more or less accurate. And economists who agree with that certainly exist even in the west.

The “China hype” should certainly still be a thing because actually nothing has really changed. The economy growth was always going to modestly slow down. Hyping up the slowdown actually clearly showed media’s negative bias against China.

I guess 4-5% in the 2020s sounds pretty believable, atleast after 2025 or so, but again, that is totally expected and was always going to happen as China gets richer. And India is already growing slightly faster than China, as it should, considering their economy is still much less developed, so it’s not comparable.

I do agree with you that the western media has been even more negative on the Russian economy and on Russia in general, especially after Maidan.

It’s also pretty clear to me that the “image” of Russian economy has totally collapsed and it’s going to take some time to recover. People in the west probably happily think that the Russian economy has gone down the drain, or something, which obviously isn’t true at all. “Ultra-developed west’s sanctions against ebil Putler and his kleptoratic gas station of an ‘economy’.”

Really, the role of oil and gas was always exaggerated to massive proportions. It’s an easy talking point to mention Russian exports without any context vs. “oh, eveything I own is made in China.” Then there are things like the fact that Russia is in Europe, right next to EU and NATO, but China is far away, so the relations between the west and Russia have always been more tense, even before 2014.

Russian so-called “everything is bad in Russia, let’s blame Putin” liberals have been a major source for anti-Russian propaganda (including the economy), they don’t exist in China.

Many people also don’t realize that Russian and Chinese economies aren’t directly comparable. The Soviet economy was already much more developed than China in the 80s and average Russian living standards remain considerably higher. Not to mention the fact that China’s population is almost 10 times bigger.

Unfortunately that's probably correct. Frauke Petry certainly won't become chancellor...you could have increased the likelihood for this to 99%. However, I do have some hope that the AfD might do better than expected...if they get 20% or even more and if the CDU does really badly (and if the Bavarian CSU who has made some critical noise about Merkel's immigration policy doesn't lose as much), there might finally be a coup against Merkel in her own party. Hard to predict what's going to happen though, might depend on whether there will be more high publicity crimes/terror attacks by migrants.
In any case, I'm looking forward to your game reviews :-)

I am already betting with some people that AfD gets the second most votes in the upcoming federal election

It's very difficult to judge, I really have no idea how well the AfD is going to do. Some polls only have them at about 12% or so. Obviously you read a lot of unrest about Merkel in comments online, but we probably should beware of thinking our own bubble is representative...I'm afraid very many people in Germany are still fully behind an open borders policy.
And even if the AfD gets 20% or more this might have not much of an immediate effect...would probably even escalate the "antifascist" hysterics. We'll have to wait and see.

The “Ferguson Effect” reverses or at least stabilizes (homicides in major urban areas peak off): 60%.

I don't know about that. The media will hype white-cop-shoots-black-teen incidents as the ugly face of Trumpism. That would cause more riots. Big city mayors are liberal wimps who will continue to muzzle police in response to unrest.

François Fillon becomes French President: 70%.

He wants to reduce the importance of the state in the French economy. As I've been saying for years, US whites are anti-gov because they know that the gov spends their tax money on blacks, not because of a frontier-like spirit of independence inherited from the Scottish lowlands or any of that romantic crap. FDR's statism was race-blind, so US whites supported it. LBJ's (and later) statism benefited blacks at the expense of whites, so whites turned against it.

As immigrants become the main beneficiaries of the Euro welfare states, the natives should be expected to turn against statism. You've written about US politics becoming more European. This is Euro politics becoming more American.

No Islamic terrorist attack in Europe causing more than 100 deaths: 70%.

I'm more pessimistic on that one.

"I should imminently have a lot more free time so my productivity should increase"

Great to hear. And thank you for the mention.

[He wants to reduce the importance of the state in the French economy]

So did Sarko. So does even Hollande. Nothing will come of it, because …

[As immigrants become the main beneficiaries of the Euro welfare states, the natives should be expected to turn against statism.]

FN supporters in the north and east look to the state to help them. They know they can expect nothing from the tender mercies of capitalism.

I am already betting with some people that AfD gets the second most votes in the upcoming federal election

It’s very difficult to judge, I really have no idea how well the AfD is going to do. Some polls only have them at about 12% or so. Obviously you read a lot of unrest about Merkel in comments online, but we probably should beware of thinking our own bubble is representative…I’m afraid very many people in Germany are still fully behind an open borders policy.
And even if the AfD gets 20% or more this might have not much of an immediate effect…would probably even escalate the “antifascist” hysterics. We’ll have to wait and see.

Big city mayors are liberal wimps who will continue to muzzle police in response to unrest.

My confidence in this particular prediction isn't high. I'm just betting (as with the campus disinvitations prediction) that the groundswell of opinion against SJWism in all its forms as expressed in Trumpism is going to affect the people in charge - who do after all have elections to win and students to attract - more strongly than their urge to react hystrionically to Trump.

As immigrants become the main beneficiaries of the Euro welfare states, the natives should be expected to turn against statism. You’ve written about US politics becoming more European.

I totally agree. As Sailer pointed out there was an amazing r=-0.87 correlation between %Blacks and Bernie share of the vote in the primaries.

I’m more pessimistic on that one.

It's what statistics over the past few years would indicate. From the 2016 predictions: "Although the concern about them is highly understandable, it should be noted that in the past ~decade there were only two such instances – Spain in 2004, and France in 2015. So there’s likely a less than 50% chance of that happening in any one year, regardless of the current increase in tensions."

It’s what statistics over the past few years would indicate. From the 2016 predictions: “Although the concern about them is highly understandable, it should be noted that in the past ~decade there were only two such instances – Spain in 2004, and France in 2015. So there’s likely a less than 50% chance of that happening in any one year, regardless of the current increase in tensions.“

It’s true, however I’d still agree with Glossy. While in history, those attachs have been very rare in the EU, their probability has increased nevertheless. After all, the Nice terrorist also came rather close to killing 100 people.

I’d also be interested in your prediction whether Russia will be able to post a higher fertility rate than the US in 2017. In 2015, the figures were 1.84 and 1.78 for the US and Russia, respectively. In 2016, based on already published birth figures , my forecast is 1.82 and 1.78. It could either be that Russia has for the moment maxed out at a rate of 1.8 children per woman, or it could be the impact of the current crisis. In the US it will be an interesting question whether there will be a “Trump effect” that lifts fertility up again, or whether the US stays “European” as you said.

I'd also be interested in your prediction whether Russia will be able to post a higher fertility rate than the US in 2017. In 2015, the figures were 1.84 and 1.78 for the US and Russia, respectively. In 2016, based on already published birth figures , my forecast is 1.82 and 1.78. It could either be that Russia has for the moment maxed out at a rate of 1.8 children per woman, or it could be the impact of the current crisis. In the US it will be an interesting question whether there will be a "Trump effect" that lifts fertility up again, or whether the US stays "European" as you said.

Rosstat data for 2016 shows marriages falling substantially, which is usually a bad sign for next year fertility, so I very much doubt the TFR is going to increase.

Rosstat data for 2016 shows marriages falling substantially, which is usually a bad sign for next year fertility, so I very much doubt the TFR is going to increase.

It makes sense that after two years of recession, fertility would decline, as couples start to postpone marriage and childbirth. However, if the RSFSR could have fertility of 1.89 in 1990, I don't see any reason why Russia shouldn't be able to return to at least that level.

I'll also be interested in the Rosstat TFR data by region, to see if the fertility gap between the majority-Muslim regions (Chechnya, in particular) and non-Muslim regions continues to narrow.

In 2015 the Muslim regions had an average TFR (weighted for population) of 1.99, vs. 1.75 for the majority-Slavic regions, but without Chechnya (2.80, down from 3.45 in 2010) the Muslim figure would have been 1.90.

Rosstat data for 2016 shows marriages falling substantially, which is usually a bad sign for next year fertility, so I very much doubt the TFR is going to increase.

I suspect US TFR will remain marginally above Russia's next year.

Rosstat data for 2016 shows marriages falling substantially, which is usually a bad sign for next year fertility, so I very much doubt the TFR is going to increase.

It makes sense that after two years of recession, fertility would decline, as couples start to postpone marriage and childbirth. However, if the RSFSR could have fertility of 1.89 in 1990, I don’t see any reason why Russia shouldn’t be able to return to at least that level.

I’ll also be interested in the Rosstat TFR data by region, to see if the fertility gap between the majority-Muslim regions (Chechnya, in particular) and non-Muslim regions continues to narrow.

In 2015 the Muslim regions had an average TFR (weighted for population) of 1.99, vs. 1.75 for the majority-Slavic regions, but without Chechnya (2.80, down from 3.45 in 2010) the Muslim figure would have been 1.90.

Rosstat data for 2016 shows marriages falling substantially, which is usually a bad sign for next year fertility, so I very much doubt the TFR is going to increase.

It makes sense that after two years of recession, fertility would decline, as couples start to postpone marriage and childbirth. However, if the RSFSR could have fertility of 1.89 in 1990, I don't see any reason why Russia shouldn't be able to return to at least that level.

I'll also be interested in the Rosstat TFR data by region, to see if the fertility gap between the majority-Muslim regions (Chechnya, in particular) and non-Muslim regions continues to narrow.

In 2015 the Muslim regions had an average TFR (weighted for population) of 1.99, vs. 1.75 for the majority-Slavic regions, but without Chechnya (2.80, down from 3.45 in 2010) the Muslim figure would have been 1.90.

[It makes sense that after two years of recession, fertility would decline, as couples start to postpone marriage and childbirth.]

I haven't seriously investigated this, but surely it is common sense that most people get married with a view to having a child in the next 0-3 years.

The marriage rate declined 13% in Jan-Nov 2016 relative to the same period last year, which is quite substantial, so I don't see how the TFR could rise further in the near future. It would be great it if doesn't fall.

[It makes sense that after two years of recession, fertility would decline, as couples start to postpone marriage and childbirth.]

History does not show any such mechanical or automatic relationship.

I haven’t seriously investigated this, but surely it is common sense that most people get married with a view to having a child in the next 0-3 years.

The marriage rate declined 13% in Jan-Nov 2016 relative to the same period last year, which is quite substantial, so I don’t see how the TFR could rise further in the near future. It would be great it if doesn’t fall.

The marriage rate declined 13% in Jan-Nov 2016 relative to the same period last year, which is quite substantial, so I don’t see how the TFR could rise further in the near future. It would be great it if doesn’t fall.

Actually closer to 14% (8.0/1000 to 6.9/1000).

However, from 2011 to 2012, marriages declined by 7.6% from 9.2/1000 to 8.5/1000, while the fertility rate increased by 7% from 1.58 to 1.69.

Opposition to the New Deal first began in the Great Plains, not the Deep South.

I think that FDR was least popular with Yankees. The rugged Scots-Irish individualists in the South were for him because they were poor and his statism was of an anti-poverty kind.

All politics is tribal. The big question isn't statism vs. laissez faire, but whom does this or that particular version of statism or laissez faire benefit? Are we winning or losing on this?

And I'm not faulting anyone for asking this question. If the government takes your hard-earned money and gives it to foreign-to-you layabouts, it's natural to be opposed to it. But not all statism is of that kind.

I think there may be some truth to that, but I don’t think it’s the whole story. For instance, if you look at New Deal policies, they were very focused on providing jobs, due to the culture at the time that denigrated layabouts and bums. While make-work schemes like the Civilian Conservation Corps can certainly be criticized on economic grounds (and were so criticized by the Old Right), they at least tried to preserve the idea that nobody was entitled to a living without working for it.

The Great Society programs, on the other hand, were much more focused on just doling out cash, regardless of whether the recipients tried to work for it or not. I remember reading that in the 1970s a lot of white working-class folks refused such welfare on principle, even as they no doubt continued to support New Deal policies. I don’t see why there would be a stigma among white working-class people against receiving welfare if their only objection to such welfare was that it was going to support blacks.

Of course, as Charles Murray documents, the bum culture has spread into white working-class neighborhoods since the 1970s, and you find the same kind of long-term unemployment and withdrawal from the labor force that you do among the black underclass.

I haven't seriously investigated this, but surely it is common sense that most people get married with a view to having a child in the next 0-3 years.

The marriage rate declined 13% in Jan-Nov 2016 relative to the same period last year, which is quite substantial, so I don't see how the TFR could rise further in the near future. It would be great it if doesn't fall.

The marriage rate declined 13% in Jan-Nov 2016 relative to the same period last year, which is quite substantial, so I don’t see how the TFR could rise further in the near future. It would be great it if doesn’t fall.

Actually closer to 14% (8.0/1000 to 6.9/1000).

However, from 2011 to 2012, marriages declined by 7.6% from 9.2/1000 to 8.5/1000, while the fertility rate increased by 7% from 1.58 to 1.69.

Your predictions for 2017 are too conservative. Europe is more volatile than last year, and there are no positive trends. Some surprises are bound to happen – and they will be destabilizing.

EU has been living off good will and vague promises for the future. At some point, even the most passive and naive people start questioning whether the promises will ever be carried out; passage of time does that to people. The splits among the ruling classes are more and more deep, with in some cases, rhetoric appearing that is very confrontational. I am referring to the EU-liberal attack on the very concept of free speech, accusations of ‘treason’, attempts to double down on the control of discussion, suppressing any ‘deviant’ views, etc… The other side – the nationally minded challengers – is also escalating its rhetoric and feels that they have ‘history’ on their side. So we are in for some fireworks – the recent appearance of clowns, like Boris Johnson or the weird ‘marry my teacher’ Emanuel Macron, is usually a sign of coming turbulence (there are many others on all sides). Clowns appear when tensions get too high. I fully expect Merkel to do some silly faux-pa this year.

The percentages you have – 70% for roughly keeping things as they with small reforms – understate the volatile state of Europe. The combination of economic stall and austerity, mass migration, and ever-more silly ‘foreign interventions’ (“Baltics are under threat!!!!”), signals some bigger things happening. It might not happen until 2018 (the ’8″ year itch is famous in Europe), but this is not going to be smooth sailing. Let’s enjoy the ride :)….

If this happens than Trump has been an excellent president because it is very very unlikely looking back at past trends. I don’t know if he will be a good president or not, nobody does, but you had better go back and look at USA GDP growth for the last decade. Not one single year have we exceeded 3% GDP growth in the last decade. The last year we exceeded 3% GDP growth was 2005. Even during the Obama years when the economy was doing very well the highest GDP growth was 2.5%.

What the orange compulsive liar will do is spend, spend, spend, and throw our country into deeper debt. Yes, it will temporarily and artificially inflate the GDP. Running up the national debt is economic child molestation. We are robbing future generations so that we can artificially live a bit better in the present.

There will be no trickle down effect to those disenfranchised voters that Trump so ably appealed to. I could explain why but it takes explanation of economic theory that contradicts your cherished beliefs so why should I bother. There will be a continued masterly PR campaign run by Trump so that he will probably get reelected.

Incidentally the “blessed wall” your words, is a fucking joke. It is just another meme that Trump has effectively used to manipulate you and the rest of dumbshit America.

Yes we need to keep out unskilled illegal aliens, we need them like we need a hole in the head. All we need to do is what Canada does, punish employers with stiff fines if they get caught hiring illegal aliens. It is a hell of a lot cheaper than building that stupid wall and a hell of a lot more effective. But common sense makes no sense if it takes a dime out of the pockets of the rich and the powerful.

I called Trump an orange compulsive liar. He is. Does that mean he will be a bad president? Nope. My best guess at this point is he will continue to be brilliant at connecting to the common man and extremely ignorant at understanding the complexities of the modern world.

Oh well, what can any of of us say or do. Half of young Americans can’t find New York on a map. We should stop blaming bad politicians for all our problems and start blaming how ignorant and stupid the average American is.

"not because of a frontier-like spirit of independence inherited from the Scottish lowlands or any of that romantic crap."

-But that crap did, you know, exist, and had real political effects for quite a while:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29572

LBJ’s (and later) statism benefited blacks at the expense of whites, so whites turned against it.

-Not immediately. Johnson was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of the White vote. Goldwaterism was more popular than Johnson's wildly popular proposals only in the Deep South and Arizona. However, the realization that the Democrats were now the Black Party did substantially hurt them in 1968 and the 1980s. Opposition to the New Deal first began in the Great Plains, not the Deep South.

Opposition to the New Deal first began in the Great Plains, not the Deep South.

Southern senators were careful to make sure that New Deal programs could be structured to exclude blacks and that state officials had the final say over certain decisions involving distributing funds. Hence, the New Deal was reasonably popular in the south, and even most segregationists were OK with it.

The Russian province of Amur Oblasthas a population of 830,000. In its entire Far East District, Russia has a population of 6 million. On the other side of Amur River border between Russia and China the Chinese province of Heilongjiang (in red horizontal stripes) has a population of 40 million.

The bipolar US-Soviet system was relatively stable. Russia is not a threat to US primacy, but Chinese economic growth is, because China is showing signs of turning into a giant Hong Kong. So what happens to Russia depends on whether it sees the US or China as the greater threat. *But in one important respect Russia has no reason to see a workshop of the world China as threatening, because Russia doesn’t make stuff. And that is where those in the US who are trying to detach Russia from its sphere of influence out of fear that the Russia will turn into a world-island colossus (Brzezinski) are making a huge mistake.

I’m curious about the kinds of economic and political predictions that are akin to earthquake predictions: What are the odds that The Big One happens in SoCal in the next 25 years? That has economic and political equivalents.

For example, look at Europe: Is it building toward a financial crisis in its Euro zone southern states? Southern Italy’s deterioration is somewhat masked by the economy in northern Italy. So does the Euro block eventually shrink? Or do bank depositors in Italy eventually take a hair cut?

Also, do Muslim terrorist attacks eventually shift the public opinion of some European states toward measures that currently outside of the Overton Window in Europe? Le Pen can’t win in France because the death toll isn’t high enough yet? Will that change? Will the Clash Of Civilizations cause a bigger shift in Euro public opinion than we’ve seen so far?

Could you maybe do a followup of this post almost two years later? I’ve seen some alarmist posts on Twitter, and thought maybe you could put them in perspective (e.g. reliability of data in different countries etc.), to see if anything changed since then.

You appear to have avoided some of the juicier geopolitical subjects, such as secession of Catalonia – will it actually go through or not? Will any other EU country schedule a referendum for EU exit in 2017? Will Russia annex South Ossetia? Will the OPEC agreement hold? Will there be a civil war between the “moderate rebels” and Nusrats in Syria? Will Damascus suburbs be completely cleared of armed opposition by the year’s end? Will the government of Venezuela survive 2017? Will Ukraine end up paying 3bn+interest back to Russia? Will there be early parliamentary elections in Modova? Those are just some of the examples off the top of my head. The “juicy subjects” are the ones which are already known to be a point of interest, are viewed as impactful, and yet don’t have a strong “expert consensus” on them. That’s where you should jump out of the bushes.

Catalonia – 95% no. No idea, but don’t see this being likely within one year (assuming this means there is both referendum, which is unconstitutional + a vote in favor, though polls seem to be split 50/50).

Another EU country referendum on Exit – 80% no. Le Pen probably won’t win, PPV probably will, but doubt other parties will support them on EU referendum.

South Ossetia annexation – 95% no. Relations with Georgia are not friendly but not hostile, first time in years there’s a real chance sanctions could be dropped – why would Russia escalate this year of all years?

Will OPEC agreement hold – 70% yes. How do you define hold? These agreements are unstable but typically last longer than one year.

Civil war between Syrian rebels – 80% no. Though depends on how we define civil war.

[…] Anatoly’s Predictions for 201 2016 Prediction Calibration Results Anatoly’s return to his homeland and his article Go Back to Russia and his detractors who say who accused him of defending a totalitarian regime while living in the comfort of the West How Anatoly’s objective is to provide a balanced and accurate portrayal of Russia Anatoly’s observations on how Moscow and Russia have changed since he was last there a decade ago How Moscow has become both more civil but also more diverse, despite still be around 90% Russian Russia’s Demographics, a rise in the Russian birth rate, and Muslim population Anatoly’s interview with Zvezda TV about Trump and the relationship between the US and Russia Russians have a more positive view of the US than of the EU(latest Levada poll at: 60%), and generally hold me more positive view of Trump than the rest of the world Anatoly’s prediction the Alt Right acrimoniously splits into Trumpists and anti-Trumpists, a prediction that dates back to to May 2016 The fascinating Putin/Trump parallel, how Putin’s Solovyev/Starikov are Trump’s Milo/Cernovich, while the ethnats have at best a “mixed” relationship with them The short term decline in migrant arrivals by sea into Europe, and the long term affects of migration, including a European exodus out of Europe Anatoly’s London Impressions, the Minority status of the British in London, London’s recent building boom, and 60’s futurist architecture including Centre Point and the BT Tower Contrasting the Transit systems of Moscow’s Metro and London’s Underground The FIRE economy, the affects of the financial sector on the economy, and how the FIRE sectors takes away cognitive capital from more productive endeavours […]

Blogroll

This is not so much meant to be comprehensive as to illustrate the themes and individual thinkers whom I follow and am inspired by.

I do not bother including any MSM outlets, since I’m sure they can do just fine without my publicity.

Blogs which I consider to be particularly good and/or prominent are highlighted in bold, and blogs that appear to have gone dormant appear at the end in italics. While I try to keep these things objective, if you include me in your blogroll that does vastly increase the chances that I’ll reciprocate.